Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Machiavelli]

LOL. They were acquitted by a jury. They wouldn't appeal the refusal to turn over the records.

Here I am talking about what they did not do before the Hellmann-Zanetti verdict.
The defence can petition the SC on single issues even meanwhile over the course of trial or while awaiting appeals.

 

[Diocletus]

It was Hellmann-Zanetti foremost who considered further confirmatory DNA tests on knife and Aviello's testimony as "decisive".
I interpret this as that this evidence could have been "decisive", within the perspective of Hellmann-Zanetti.

I don't. The prosecutor argued that 36i was decisive, and the Supreme Court used the decisiveness of 36i as a ground to reverse Hellmann. Therefore, 36i--showing food debris and Knox's DNA on the blade--is decisive.

 

[LondonJohn]

The lack? The presence of bruising of the external labia, is what the autopsy reveals.
Moreover, she had over 30+ further bruises.

Sorry, but this is both incorrect and intentionally misleading.

Firstly, this is what the Massei report had to say on the condition of Meredith's genitals post-mortem, according to the autopsy report:

Following divarication of the major and minor lips (i.e. labia), it was possible to note small areas of bruising, coloured darker than the surrounding areas. The hymen was indented without any lacerations or traumatic injuries, indicating that the young woman was sexually active. Nor did the vaginal canal or the cervix present injuries "of any pathological or traumatic significance"

Taken as a whole, it's absolutely clear that the autopsy report found no traumatic injury to Meredith's genitals. The labia tend to be prone to small contusions during normal sex, since they are stretched and abraded by normal intercourse. As the autopsy report clearly states, there was no other indicator other than that "the young woman was sexually active".

Secondly, it's obviously time once more to dispel this pro-guilt myth about the amount (and implied severity) of marks and bruises found on Meredith's body at autopsy. In fact, excluding the head and neck, there were virtually no significant marks or bruises present. Again, quoting from the Massei report's summery of the autopsy report:

There were no noticeable injuries to the chest or abdomen.

The presence of two relatively slight areas of bruising, with scarce colouring and barely noticeable, were detected in the region of the elbow.

On the hands were small wounds showing a very slight defensive response.
A small, very slight patch of colour was noticed on the "anterior inner surface of the left thigh" (page 16). Another bruise was noted on the anterior surface, in the middle third of the right leg" (page 17).

AND THAT'S IT: "No noticeable injuries to the chest or abdomen"; "two relatively slight areas of bruising, with scarce colouring and hardly noticeable" around the elbow; "small wounds" on the hands; a"small. very slight patch of colour" on the inside front of the left thigh; another bruise on the front middle of the right leg.

And that's it.

These injuries are simply not compatible with forced restraint against a victim who is struggling against that restraint. They are, however, completely compatible with the victim having been essentially put into submission through threats, with someone lightly holding her elbows at one point, and a very small defensive response by the victim against a knife held at her throat (which in itself suggests that her hands were not being held down at the time).

Simply put, Meredith Kercher was not covered in significant marks and bruises. Ergo, she did not become involved in any kind of violent struggle with any attacker (or attackers), and nor was she violently restrained at any time.

 

[Diocletus]

If the fact-findings of the lower courts were absolutely untouchable, there could be no paragraphs d) and e).

These paragraphs exist; so the letter c) must not be intended as inclusive of all kind and forms of incursion in fact finding.
The Supreme Court avoids activities of exclusive fact-finding.

The supreme court is not supposed to disturb the findings of fact. It is allowed to correct a logical inconsistency (or whatever) in the underlying motivation. So here, the supreme court has decided that the motivation is illogical because it is in disagreement with the lower court's findings of fact. In other words, it's using the backdoor to do exactly what it's not supposed to do. This provision was never intended to give the supreme court the power to do what it has done; otherwise, the prohibition on disturbing the facts is meaningless.

Just more dishonesty.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you want to know that, the cops were interested in vaseline because of the anomalous anus dilatation, and because of the stains which Stefanoni attributed to probable semen, while cops suspected were vaseline.

The anus dilation found at autopsy wasn't "anomalous" at all. Following any death, sphincter muscles gradually relax and loosen, including the anal sphincter. This is exactly what Lalli found at autopsy.

You really shouldn't pronounce on medical matters unless you understand them properly....

 

[Diocletus]

But I'm not willing to accept their lies, racism and arrogance neither.

This means legitimate criticism of the Italian justice system, which by the way, is just the same as the criticisms that Italians themselves have of their own justice system. The problem seems to be just that non-Italians are making these criticisms, which is only natural, since the defects in the Italian justice system are now having consequences on non-Italians.

 

[Diocletus]

If you want to know that, the cops were interested in vaseline because of the anomalous anus dilatation, and because of the stains which Stefanoni attributed to probable semen, while cops suspected were vaseline.

Finally, Stefanoni gets something right. Too bad the semen-expert cops second-guessed her.

 

[Antony]

I recall that you made the question, but the answer is in the definition of the SC work, and it is self-evidence in the kind of points raised by Galati and ruled on by the SC: they rule on legitimacy of judgements.
There are several breaches of legal provisions in the Hellmann-Zanetti judgement, but the most obvious are the manifest inconsistencies of the reasoning and the inconsistence between evidence documentation and judgement rationale.

Well of course this is no answer at all - criticising a judge's interpretation of evidence on purely subjective grounds does not indicate a "breach of legal provision" in any sense that a rational court would recognise.

For example if they rule that Quintavalle or Capezzali is unreliable, contrarily to what the Massei court ruled, but they fail to provide any logical rationale for this or if they misreport the content of their testimony, the judgement is manifestly inconsistent.

It's impossible to take this kind of comment seriously. The problems with Quintavalle's and Capazzelli's testimony are so obvious that they hardly need to be stated. This puts your previous post into context:

First, there is no reason to take away the knife and the bra clasp, and second, the rest of the evidence is the best possible solid set of circumstantial evidence, the best kind of evidence you can have in a trial and absolutely enough to convict.

Your "best possible solid evidence" doesn't even point to a coherent narrative of the crime that involves the 2 people you continue to persecute. The different elements of the prosecution case don't even support one another. It's utterly contrived, incoherent and hopelessly compromised, by any rational real-world standards; and the fact that significant parts of the Italian justice system continue to sustain it 6 years on simply shows that they do not belong to the real world.

 

[Diocletus]

Here I am talking about what they did not do before the Hellmann-Zanetti verdict.
The defence can petition the SC on single issues even meanwhile over the course of trial or while awaiting appeals.

Oh, an interlocutory appeal. They should do that. But it would be futile because the supreme court won't hear it.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are climbing on glass. My job is not to correct people's opinions, and you know that. Everybody has a right to their opinions. But the question about premeditaion is totally secondary. Whether there is evidence of premeditation or not, is one thing; whether there is evidence of guilt on the charges of sexual violence ans murder, is another thing.
I think there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt.
I'm not sure there is enough evidence of premeditation.
But the two things are separate.

If there is not enough evidence of premeditation, Massei has a duty to offer an alternative non-premeditated scenario, which may be reasonable or possible albeit improbable, and convict the defendants on the non-premeditated variant.

Well, then, if you will not correct other people on their opinions about premeditation, can I quote you and cite you as a source?

 

[Dan O.]

The cops surreptitiously recorded a conversation between Amanda and Raffaele on or about 3 November, one that took place within the station. I don't recall which room it was, but it was about someone that Amanda knew from work, IIRC. So at least one room had the capability of making sound recordings.

They seem to record everything except that which they are required to record. Here are a few that I have been able to find references to:


Recording at the Questura

Massei pg.7
(The interception took place in the local environment of the police headquarters in Perugia, well prepared when they gathered on the afternoon of 2:11:07 occupants of Meredith Kercher, the boys in the apartment below the one occupied dall'uccisa, the English student of English friends engaged Perugia Erasmus project, other environmental interception had taken place during talks in custody of Amanda with parents; wiretaps had finally covered the fixed and mobile users of family members of Raffaele Sollecito.)

Perugia-Shock 2009-11-27 Monica's testimony
On the 4th she calls Amanda for an interview. And Raffaele shows up too. Amanda is about to be questioned but he absolutely wants to talk to Amanda, he absolutely wants to deliver her a pizza. Foxy Monica makes him happy, at the end, and puts them together in a
bugged room (but nothing important sorted out from that environmental recording).

CP1 p.1960 katy_did
The report on a conversation, an 'environmental' interception, which occurred 4 November 2007 at the Questura of Perugia
​

 

[Diocletus]

They seem to record everything except that which they are required to record. Here are a few that I have been able to find references to:


Recording at the Questura

Massei pg.7
(The interception took place in the local environment of the police headquarters in Perugia, well prepared when they gathered on the afternoon of 2:11:07 occupants of Meredith Kercher, the boys in the apartment below the one occupied dall'uccisa, the English student of English friends engaged Perugia Erasmus project, other environmental interception had taken place during talks in custody of Amanda with parents; wiretaps had finally covered the fixed and mobile users of family members of Raffaele Sollecito.)

Perugia-Shock 2009-11-27 Monica's testimony
On the 4th she calls Amanda for an interview. And Raffaele shows up too. Amanda is about to be questioned but he absolutely wants to talk to Amanda, he absolutely wants to deliver her a pizza. Foxy Monica makes him happy, at the end, and puts them together in a
bugged room (but nothing important sorted out from that environmental recording).

CP1 p.1960 katy_did
The report on a conversation, an 'environmental' interception, which occurred 4 November 2007 at the Questura of Perugia
​

It seems like maybe they draw a distinction between a wiretap and an "environmental" (public) recording. Clearly, though, they have the technology and budget to bug everything.

 

[davefoc]

I find this discussion about whether Mignini ever actually used the term "Satanism" to be a bit pointless. The fact that Mignini described the killing to be a sexual and sacrificial rite to be associated with Halloween and All Saints Day which is to celebrate the Dead kind of says it all. Does he mean that Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy were worshiping Satan specifically when Meredith was killed? I'm not sure. Does it sound like he is describing something to do with the underworld? ABSOLUTELY. There is a idea around Catholicism that you are either going with God or going with the Devil. Any religious rite that is sexual and sacrificial surely must be associated with the Devil?

I am the one who has made more out of this issue than perhaps it deserves. I thought it was a straightforward issue with two possibilities and that the facts were known well enough that a complete agreement on the issue could be arrived at. The two possibilities as I saw them were:
1. Mignini had used the term, Satanic Rite, or words with a meaning that was the unequivocal equivalent of Satanic Rite.
2. The term Satani Rite had been used by others to describe loosely the occult, violent, sexual motives that Mignini had described.

Machiavelli, made arguments for a possibility that I hadn't considered. That Mignini had been misunderstood and he hadn't said anything that was even roughly equivalent to Satanic Rite. I thought it was just accepted as fact that Mignini was the driver behind the salacious early reporting on this case and the claims about Satanic Rite style violence. Machiavelli caused me to reassess what I thought I knew about this.

Now that the topic has largely run its course the outcome was a little disappointing to me as regards to my goal of obtaining an overall consensus, including Machiavelli, about what the facts of the situation are. It seems, based on what Mignini is quoted as saying in court, that he came pretty close to saying things that could roughly be categorized as Satanic Rites if a loose definition of Satanic Rite is intended. Machiavelli disagrees. He proposes that the inclusion of references to Halloween by Mignini was only to establish the time frame of the crime. I am not sure that is a plausible reading but perhaps if I could read the Italian original I might see what Machiavelli sees there. But I don't see how any translation issue or cultural misunderstanding can explain the use of the term "A sexual and, sacrificial rite", to mean something other than which equates roughly to a Satanic Rite. Machiavelli proposed that the Italian word, rito, meant something different than the English word, rite. In the context of "sexual and sacrificial rite", I don't see that Machiavelli's idea is likely to be correct.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am the one who has made more out of this issue than perhaps it deserves. I thought it was a straightforward issue with two possibilities and that the facts were known well enough that a complete agreement on the issue could be arrived at. The two possibilities as I saw them were:
1. Mignini had used the term, Satanic Rite, or words with a meaning that was the unequivocal equivalent of Satanic Rite.
2. The term Satani Rite had been used by others to describe loosely the occult, violent, sexual motives that Mignini had described.

Machiavelli, made arguments for a possibility that I hadn't considered. That Mignini had been misunderstood and he hadn't said anything that was even roughly equivalent to Satanic Rite. I thought it was just accepted as fact that Mignini was the driver behind the salacious early reporting on this case and the claims about Satanic Rite style violence. Machiavelli caused me to reassess what I thought I knew about this.

Now that the topic has largely run its course the outcome was a little disappointing to me as regards to my goal of obtaining an overall consensus, including Machiavelli, about what the facts of the situation are. It seems, based on what Mignini is quoted as saying in court, that he came pretty close to saying things that could roughly be categorized as Satanic Rites if a loose definition of Satanic Rite is intended. Machiavelli disagrees. He proposes that the inclusion of references to Halloween by Mignini was only to establish the time frame of the crime. I am not sure that is a plausible reading but perhaps if I could read the Italian original I might see what Machiavelli sees there. But I don't see how any translation issue or cultural misunderstanding can explain the use of the term "A sexual and, sacrificial rite", to mean something other than which equates roughly to a Satanic Rite. Machiavelli proposed that the Italian word, rito, meant something different than the English word, rite. In the context of "sexual and sacrificial rite", I don't see that Machiavelli's idea is likely to be correct.

I am also one who has, perhaps, made more of this than need be. (What else is new?)

I'm not sure I've been successful in stressing the point that this is really an issue in 2013, than it was in 2008 or so - and thanks should go to Machiavelli for straightening out that Mignini's public outcry through his letter to the editor was in response to something Mario Spezi had recently said.

It's been a tad bizarre, though, to have the debate be about the saying of the literal phrase, "Satanic Rite", when Mignini all-but said that. For me, it is a very accurate summary.

Still, Machiavelli's reinvention of what Mignini actually meant, as if all Mignii was trying to do was establish this on the calendar, is one of Macchiavelli's trademarked inventions. But then again, this functions as Machiavelli's de facto admission that Mignini DID saying something to that effect - except he now claims we're only arguing the meaning... which is ludicrous.

Much like claiming Amanda's "I was there" statement was actually Mafia code between her and her mother. It's really quite amazing that Machiavelli thinks he is taken seriously by anyone with these sorts of remarks.

 

[billyryan]

It seems like maybe they draw a distinction between a wiretap and an "environmental" (public) recording. Clearly, though, they have the technology and budget to bug everything.

While we are on the subject of bugging,it now seems the US national security agency have been bugging millions of European phonecalls in the very recent past,French and German telephone calls anyway,could the US security agency have recordings of calls between Mignini and Stefanoni and the police involved in this case,two US senaters are involved in the presentation to the US congress could they potentially get access to these tape recordings

 

[Planigale]

My interpretation (and I stand to be corrected) is that the starch was found where the blade and handle join. The area that was swabbed that was subsequently reported as showing MK DNA was a discoloured area half way down the blade. The significance of the starch is not merely with regards to the knife being dirty or clean. Starch tends to adsorb substances. If the knife had been used in a murder, the starch would have become contaminated with blood, proteins and cells would have become bound to the starch. The absence of detectable human blood and DNA associated with this starch is a very positive indication that the knife was never exposed to human blood.

 

[Diocletus]

I really wish that I could find a full copy of this article: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102812103257

It appears that the Italian supreme court has been abusing this "illogicality" standard of review, in order to re-visit facts that it has no business addressing, and as a result, has been showered with criticism and issued some spectacularly embarrassing decisions (including the jeans-rape decision). Imbeciles.

But again, Italians seem well-aware of this phenomena, but are nowhere to be found when it comes to speaking out against the Kercher injustice. Cowards.

 

[Machiavelli]

I am the one who has made more out of this issue than perhaps it deserves. I thought it was a straightforward issue with two possibilities and that the facts were known well enough that a complete agreement on the issue could be arrived at. The two possibilities as I saw them were:
1. Mignini had used the term, Satanic Rite, or words with a meaning that was the unequivocal equivalent of Satanic Rite.
2. The term Satani Rite had been used by others to describe loosely the occult, violent, sexual motives that Mignini had described.

Machiavelli, made arguments for a possibility that I hadn't considered. That Mignini had been misunderstood and he hadn't said anything that was even roughly equivalent to Satanic Rite. I thought it was just accepted as fact that Mignini was the driver behind the salacious early reporting on this case and the claims about Satanic Rite style violence. Machiavelli caused me to reassess what I thought I knew about this.

Now that the topic has largely run its course the outcome was a little disappointing to me as regards to my goal of obtaining an overall consensus, including Machiavelli, about what the facts of the situation are. It seems, based on what Mignini is quoted as saying in court, that he came pretty close to saying things that could roughly be categorized as Satanic Rites if a loose definition of Satanic Rite is intended. Machiavelli disagrees. He proposes that the inclusion of references to Halloween by Mignini was only to establish the time frame of the crime. I am not sure that is a plausible reading but perhaps if I could read the Italian original I might see what Machiavelli sees there. But I don't see how any translation issue or cultural misunderstanding can explain the use of the term "A sexual and, sacrificial rite", to mean something other than which equates roughly to a Satanic Rite. Machiavelli proposed that the Italian word, rito, meant something different than the English word, rite. In the context of "sexual and sacrificial rite", I don't see that Machiavelli's idea is likely to be correct.

I'd like to specify: I did not exactly say that Mignini was only establishing the time frame, I said that it seems he meant 'Halloween' was not just a date, but also a theme.
He is speaking also about personalities, and about, more than just a date, I would say an opportunity (there was a theme, an atmosphere, but also it was the only day when Meredith would be home alone).

This is what I wrote in a previous post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9541534#post9541534

(...)
In fact Mignini does not talk merely about dates, he also suggest that it is "not unrealistic" (non è inverosimile) that these peculiar dates plaid a role - together with the other material (comics, violent porn videos etc) - as a cultural theme suggestion for the two "obsessive" charachters to chose that day to organize a "festino" (a little fun; party, prank, etc.).

It's quite obvious that Mignini is talking about dates and about a possible ("not unrealistic") theme (or suggestion, inspiration, idea) for having a little party. (little, because they were supposed to be only four people) (...)

I will write a long post quoting and translating what Mignini said exactly (has been quoted extensively, but let's see it all together).

 

[Machiavelli]

This means legitimate criticism of the Italian justice system, which by the way, is just the same as the criticisms that Italians themselves have of their own justice system. The problem seems to be just that non-Italians are making these criticisms, which is only natural, since the defects in the Italian justice system are now having consequences on non-Italians.

Those Italians who spread the kind of lies that you disseminate on this case are people like Spezi, Brindani, Sabina Castrelfranco, Rocco Girlanda and their friends.
These people don't deserve any kinder response than the 'foreigners' who do the same; quite the contrary, I am more enraged with little groups of Italians rather than with the mob of Knox supporters.
In fact, even Mignini responds to Spezi - he does nor respond to Dempsey or Diocletus.

 

[Diocletus]

Those Italians who spread the kind of lies that you disseminate on this case are people like Spezi, Brindani, Sabina Castrelfranco, Rocco Girlanda and their friends.
These people don't deserve any kinder response than the 'foreigners' who do the same; quite the contrary, I am more enraged with little groups of Italians rather than with the mob of Knox supporters.
In fact, even Mignini responds to Spezi - he does nor respond to Dempsey or Diocletus.

I wouldn't want to communicate with Mignini. He seems like a dopey provincial, a rotten lawyer and a tool. Nothing in it for me; Spezi can have him.

Also, I'll bet he sweats a lot and smells like garlic.